PDA

View Full Version : Trump will quit.


Cadanance00
August 9th, 2016, 05:40 PM
Donald Trump will quit before the election and he will blame everybody but himself. He cannot possibly take responsibility for loosing, especially to a woman (even if she no longer menstruates). I see no other outcome considering his precipitous drop in the polls. Hell, he's even going to deliver Georgia to the democrats. Then he will sue the republicans, the media and everybody else he can find. He will avoid all responsibility for the hateful and bombastic things he has said and the results they have had.

Then the T-P ticket will be P-and-somebody-else and will have a fighting chance against Billary.


My guess is that he will quit before the debates, but that's only a hunch.
~Caen

Paraxiom
August 9th, 2016, 06:03 PM
Cadanance00

You could very well be right. It would be an easier exit, though it would be a nasty shake to the election race if it were to happen.

I would prefer that it doesn't happen.

Flapjack
August 9th, 2016, 06:12 PM
I doubt he will quit tbh.

Vlerchan
August 9th, 2016, 06:12 PM
Billary
I am generally unsure why you think this is derogatory.

Bill was great.

Just JT
August 9th, 2016, 07:54 PM
Fuck I hope your right















But let's be kind it got nothing to do with menstruarion

phuckphace
August 10th, 2016, 03:40 AM
I am generally unsure why you think this is derogatory.

Bill was great.

if you have sex in the Oval Office but the door is closed, did it really happen?

Just JT
August 10th, 2016, 04:25 AM
if you have sex in the Oval Office but the door is closed, did it really happen?


Well it could, it's really a matter of the definition of theat it "is" rights?

Mars
August 10th, 2016, 04:29 AM
VT Daily :arrow: ROTW

This is better fit here.

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 10:02 AM
A question tho if he quits who replace him as the republican nominee?

DriveAlive
August 10th, 2016, 10:07 AM
P-P-P-Paul Ryan

Cadanance00
August 10th, 2016, 10:16 AM
A question tho if he quits who replace him as the republican nominee?

The VP nominee automatically gets it and picks a running mate.

The Donald doesn't hesitate to make the maximum amount of trouble possible. Crazy people have a knack for that, and at the worst possible time. So far, the comments designed to make an uproar have steadily gotten worse. There's a limit. The repub nat'l security people are already publicly asking him to drop out.

He'll say the system is rigged, the election is rigged so there's no use running since the outcome is already determined (it is, but by him), and he'll blame everybody but himself, who as we all know is perfect and wonderful.
~Caen

Gwen
August 10th, 2016, 10:17 AM
After Bernie Sander's leaving and buying a $600k beach house and endorsing Hillary, this entire election has just become a dramatic TV show. I honestly am completely ready for anything to happen now, if he just dropped out of the race by tomorrow it wouldn't throw me off guard anymore.

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 10:29 AM
The VP nominee automatically gets it and picks a running mate.

The Donald doesn't hesitate to make the maximum amount of trouble possible. Crazy people have a knack for that, and at the worst possible time. So far, the comments designed to make an uproar have steadily gotten worse. There's a limit. The repub nat'l security people are already publicly asking him to drop out.

He'll say the system is rigged, the election is rigged so there's no use running since the outcome is already determined (it is, but by him), and he'll blame everybody but himself, who as we all know is perfect and wonderful.
~Caen

Thanks I would have guessed its the guy who came second in the primary, probably thats why Mike Pence took the job he knew there is a chance Trump drop out.

That he drop out or not saying that the election is rigged is not a good idea
1. It discourage his voters to vote for him saying to themself whats the point its rigged.
2. It makes people distrust the system and the goverment.

If his party really want him to stop running they just have to prosecute him for his crimes like fraud, inciting violence, asking another country to spy on his opponent, and threating that opponent by asking people to murder her, but he didnt do something really terrible like using the wrong email, or trying to give people health care.

Cadanance00
August 10th, 2016, 10:33 AM
Excellent points.

Evidently, his people called Kasich to offer him "the most powerful vice presidency in history." A year ago he made some noises that he wouldn't serve if elected. He's unstable and prone to tantrums.
~Caen

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 11:36 AM
Excellent points.

Evidently, his people called Kasich to offer him "the most powerful vice presidency in history." A year ago he made some noises that he wouldn't serve if elected. He's unstable and prone to tantrums.
~Caen

If Trump drops out and Mike Pence becomes the presidential candidate, Kasich is really gonna hate himself for rejecting that offer. Hes the one who could have had a real good chance against Hillary Clinton.

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 12:02 PM
Thanks I would have guessed its the guy who came second in the primary, probably thats why Mike Pence took the job he knew there is a chance Trump drop out.

That he drop out or not saying that the election is rigged is not a good idea
1. It discourage his voters to vote for him saying to themself whats the point its rigged.
2. It makes people distrust the system and the goverment.

If his party really want him to stop running they just have to prosecute him for his crimes like fraud, inciting violence, asking another country to spy on his opponent, and threating that opponent by asking people to murder her, but he didnt do something really terrible like using the wrong email, or trying to give people health care.

Well, both parties are criminals, still in my opinion Hillary has done more to endanger national security and made really shitty decisions during her time as Secretary of State.

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 12:08 PM
Well, both parties are criminals, still in my opinion Hillary has done more to endanger national security and made really shitty decisions during her time as Secretary of State.

As long we don't see the emails we have no evidence whether its true or not that she endanger national security or that she did anything illegal. Trump we do have evidence that he did something illegal and criminal.

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 12:22 PM
As long we don't see the emails we have no evidence whether its true or not that she endanger national security or that she did anything illegal. Trump we do have evidence that he did something illegal and criminal.

Well, people did die due to Hillary's incompetence and well, she broke protocol by storing emails on a private server.

phuckphace
August 10th, 2016, 12:24 PM
"This will be the end of Trump" says increasingly nervous ROTW poster for the 420th time this year

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 12:25 PM
Well, people did die due to Hillary's incompetence and well, she broke protocol by storing emails on a private server.

People died due to George Bush's incompetence but no one will ever trial him for war crimes and terrorism

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 12:40 PM
People died due to George Bush's incompetence but no one will ever trial him for war crimes and terrorism

He was an even bigger prick than Hillary but that doesn't exonerate her.

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 02:23 PM
He was an even bigger prick than Hillary but that doesn't exonerate her.

What she should have done differently?

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 02:45 PM
What she should have done differently?

For example, keep all her emails on the specified server, not vouching to fuck up former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Syria... I mean Trump js a crook, but Hillary is a crook with bodies behind her.

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 02:57 PM
For example, keep all her emails on the specified server, not vouching to fuck up former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Syria... I mean Trump js a crook, but Hillary is a crook with bodies behind her.

No evidence her email were responsible for that. She did some mistake like every politician before and after her, like Bush did or even Obama. Like you said she as bodies behing her, Trump is putting bodies in front of him by inciting violence and asking people to kill his opponents.

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 03:10 PM
No evidence her email were responsible for that. She did some mistake like every politician before and after her, like Bush did or even Obama. Like you said she as bodies behing her, Trump is putting bodies in front of him by inciting violence and asking people to kill his opponents.

Not the emails, her policies. She will keep leaving bodies. Leave Trump out of this, just because he is bad doesn't mean Hillary is justified. She messed up countries, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria. That is too much mistakes, she has more bodies under her belt than the Arlington cemetery. The fact that you are tying to defend her while US-backed "moderate rebels" hacked off a Palestinian boy's head is disgusting. She should be tried for assisting and enabling war criminals to commit their crimes.

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 03:22 PM
Not the emails, her policies. She will keep leaving bodies. Leave Trump out of this, just because he is bad doesn't mean Hillary is justified. She messed up countries, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Libya, Syria. That is too much mistakes, she has more bodies under her belt than the Arlington cemetery. The fact that you are tying to defend her while US-backed "moderate rebels" hacked off a Palestinian boy's head is disgusting. She should be tried for assisting and enabling war criminals to commit their crimes.

Arent Libya and Syria Obama's fault? Hes the one bombing them. We all know she wont be trial like Bush will never be tried for war crimes and terrorism, or Obama for murdering civilians in syria, or Trump for fraud, asking people to murder Hillary Clinton and use of nuclear weapons if hes elected. Trump being bad mean Clinton is justified because there is only two real options.

Porpoise101
August 10th, 2016, 03:34 PM
Libya, Syria.
Well, these are the only two things you really have on Clinton. But I wouldn't even say Libya, as that was a European crusade. Syria at the time was an opportunity. It was an opportunity to oust an unfriendly optometrist from power and the US took it to strengthen its position. That is what foreign policy is about: strengthening your nation's position in the world. Clinton did that. She made the US presence in Asia stronger, a move that may define the next century. She is definitely a more aggressive leader, but she at least has tact and plays nice. Trump does not.

Paraxiom
August 10th, 2016, 04:24 PM
if you have sex in the Oval Office but the door is closed, did it really happen?

Schrodinger's White House scandal. :P


[...] this entire election has just become a dramatic TV show. I honestly am completely ready for anything to happen now, if he just dropped out of the race by tomorrow it wouldn't throw me off guard anymore.

I feel that every US election race is a dramatic show anyway, this one just happens to be exceptionally flamboyant.

You may be ready, but many people less so; I would not be surprised if riots are to happen if either Trump or Clinton get in. I cautiously predict that actually.


"This will be the end up of Trump" says increasingly nervous ROTW poster for the 420th time this year

Trump is the political analog to a Nokia phone.


Stronk Serb

I agree with how most/all of the US political party realm is corrupted, basically gone wrong in many ways.

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 04:33 PM
Arent Libya and Syria Obama's fault? Hes the one bombing them. We all know she wont be trial like Bush will never be tried for war crimes and terrorism, or Obama for murdering civilians in syria, or Trump for fraud, asking people to murder Hillary Clinton and use of nuclear weapons if hes elected. Trump being bad mean Clinton is justified because there is only two real options.

How many lives does Trump have on his conscience and how much does Clinton? Honestly, I am dkne debating you because you support a murderer.

Well, these are the only two things you really have on Clinton. But I wouldn't even say Libya, as that was a European crusade. Syria at the time was an opportunity. It was an opportunity to oust an unfriendly optometrist from power and the US took it to strengthen its position. That is what foreign policy is about: strengthening your nation's position in the world. Clinton did that. She made the US presence in Asia stronger, a move that may define the next century. She is definitely a more aggressive leader, but she at least has tact and plays nice. Trump does not.

None of them play nice. Trump is at least honest that he is nuts, Hillary is not. I mean she helped start the civil war in Syria, they are about to lose Turkey because of a "NATO backed coup". She is responsible for servicemen dying in Benghazi and for deleting emails from a orivate server where she stored classified informations which is a breach of protocol.

Porpoise101
August 10th, 2016, 04:41 PM
I mean she helped start the civil war in Syria, they are about to lose Turkey because of a "NATO backed coup".
The Benghazi and email things have been so thoughroughly poisoned by the right wing of American politics, I do not know what is true and what half-truths that they have spun into the narrative. So I will not comment on that.

As for Syria, the civil war erupted on its own, an extension of the widespread protests to the heavy-handed treatment of the Assad regime. The US took this rare opportunity. How could they not?

As for Turkey and the 'NATO backed coup', that is most definitely a lie. Erdogan is using his 'defense of the nation' story to consolidate power and become closer to Russia. If Turkey breaks ties with NATO, it will be because of Turkey. None of this has to do with Clinton either way.

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 04:44 PM
The Benghazi and email things have been so thoughroughly poisoned by the right wing of American politics, I do not know what is true and what half-truths that they have spun into the narrative. So I will not comment on that.

As for Syria, the civil war erupted on its own, an extension of the widespread protests to the heavy-handed treatment of the Assad regime. The US took this rare opportunity. How could they not?

As for Turkey and the 'NATO backed coup', that is most definitely a lie. Erdogan is using his 'defense of the nation' story to consolidate power and become closer to Russia. If Turkey breaks ties with NATO, it will be because of Turkey. None of this has to do with Clinton either way.

The Russians warned him of the coup. The Americans could've done the same. He now owes his power and life to Putin. Also the war in Syria is going poorly for thr US-backed factions.

Porpoise101
August 10th, 2016, 04:49 PM
Also the war in Syria is going poorly for thr US-backed factions.
It was going well until many of the FSA defected to IS. The Russian assistance to Assad, leadership issues, and factionalism made their situation worse.

Cadanance00
August 10th, 2016, 05:45 PM
I WAS WRONG.

I did some reading and the delegates will have to vote again. Not necessarily a convention, though. Hillary is so unpopular that Paul Ryan could possibly upset her. Ryan is a pro, a good party man, and a strong campaigner.

One more reason I think if Trump doesn't quit in a tantrum, he'll be strong armed into quitting.

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 05:45 PM
It was going well until many of the FSA defected to IS. The Russian assistance to Assad, leadership issues, and factionalism made their situation worse.

Well, even before Russian assistance these problems were oresent. Some could say from the start.

mattsmith48
August 10th, 2016, 06:07 PM
How many lives does Trump have on his conscience and how much does Clinton? Honestly, I am dkne debating you because you support a murderer.

Its highly doubtfull Trump has a conscience, Clinton is not murderer she did some mistake that lead to the death of a few people but shes not the one who murder them or told people to murder them.

I WAS WRONG.

I did some reading and the delegates will have to vote again. Not necessarily a convention, though. Hillary is so unpopular that Paul Ryan could possibly upset her. Ryan is a pro, a good party man, and a strong campaigner.

One more reason I think if Trump doesn't quit in a tantrum, he'll be strong armed into quitting.

Makes more sense worst thing that could happen to her is Trump quitting, she is so unpopular Trump is the only person that party could have nominated who she as a chance to beat.

Stronk Serb
August 10th, 2016, 06:42 PM
Its highly doubtfull Trump has a conscience, Clinton is not murderer she did some mistake that lead to the death of a few people but shes not the one who murder them or told people to murder them.

Serb civilians killed during the NATO bombings would disagree. So would countless Syrians.

Fleek
August 10th, 2016, 08:56 PM
Index
I'll get the popcorn, find us all a good seat!

Cadanance00
August 11th, 2016, 05:40 PM
worst thing that could happen to her is Trump quitting, she is so unpopular Trump is the only person that party could have nominated who she as a chance to beat.

Yep, I've been saying that for a long time.

Porpoise101
August 12th, 2016, 09:20 AM
Serb civilians killed during the NATO bombings would disagree. So would countless Syrians.
I would think that Bush Sr. and Bill are to blame for the dead Serbs. The Syrians civilians have been mostly killed by Kerry's State Department.

phuckphace
August 12th, 2016, 09:31 AM
foreign-policy wise Hillary is Bush 2.0 aka neocon as fuck so if you were expecting anything different you're in for a huge letdown fam

on that note it's also extremely lol-worthy that the Democrats are the new warmongering neocon party in the lineup now that the GOP has shifted to the actual-right behind our golden god-emperor. back when the current year was 2004, it was totally "hip" to be a young Democrat and oppose the Iraq war for all the coolest, hippest reasons: the occupant of the White House was "R" and the people being bombed were brown, so the Left deemed it worthy of opposing. now in mid-2016 we're actually seeing Republican voters saying "maybe if we stay home this time and wait it out it'll be better for us" while the Democrats literally want to start WWIII with Russia because Putin made some degenerates cry into their organic fair-trade vodka. top kek. crazy shit yo

Porpoise101
August 12th, 2016, 09:52 AM
foreign-policy wise Hillary is Bush 2.0 aka neocon as fuck so if you were expecting anything different you're in for a huge letdown fam

I'm not sure. Polling suggests that the Democratic base is already a little upset that they are forced to vote for Clinton. The Hillary seems to be tone-deaf to this, but the newer Democrats, especially the 'yung leftists' are almost pacifistic and isolationist. If she actually uses her ears, she would realize that most of her party's more left-leaning members would rather not get involved anywhere. That could make her more cautious to attack others, at least for her first term in office.


on that note it's also extremely lol-worthy that the Democrats are the new warmongering neocon party in the lineup now that the GOP has shifted to the actual-right behind our golden god-emperor.
Maybe? The republicans are still pretty interventionist, even with a new nationalist base edging them out. Many of the old neocon politicians still inhabit Capitol Hill.

mattsmith48
August 12th, 2016, 09:54 AM
foreign-policy wise Hillary is Bush 2.0 aka neocon as fuck so if you were expecting anything different you're in for a huge letdown fam

on that note it's also extremely lol-worthy that the Democrats are the new warmongering neocon party in the lineup now that the GOP has shifted to the actual-right behind our golden god-emperor. back when the current year was 2004, it was totally "hip" to be a young Democrat and oppose the Iraq war for all the coolest, hippest reasons: the occupant of the White House was "R" and the people being bombed were brown, so the Left deemed it worthy of opposing. now in mid-2016 we're actually seeing Republican voters saying "maybe if we stay home this time and wait it out it'll be better for us" while the Democrats literally want to start WWIII with Russia because Putin made some degenerates cry into their organic fair-trade vodka. top kek. crazy shit yo

Yes Democrats want to start WWIII, thats why their nominee is the said ''nukes why don't we use them if we have them'' oh wait thats Trump who said that, the first presidencial candidate in the history of the US who said he might use nuclear weapons. I dont agree with all of Clinton's foreign policies but atlease she as a plan. Trump's ''plan'' is ''defeat ISIS very very fast''.

The situation in the middle east as become so unstable that we are one wrong plane shoot down away from WWIII. Even if that doesnt happen and they end up defeating ISIS with the current strategy it will only create another group even more dangerous. Ive said before that everyone should get out of there and let the locals deal with it, they have millitaries too

phuckphace
August 12th, 2016, 11:12 AM
most white Bernie supporters (i.e. all of them) I know irl are smart enough to get this but don't: at this point you might as well just step into your Trumpabteilung boots because MAGA is the new Occupy Wall Street. worrying about your ideological purity to the point of staying in the Democratic Party in 2016 despite the Dems literally ordering you to open your mouth so they can shit into it seems kinda silly if not a little masochistic.

Hillary the crypto-neocon isn't really even all that "crypto" about it and especially won't be after Assange literally reams her with a ream of dox detailing all of her misbehavin' in a "the FBI can't ignore it this time" kind of way.

lol holy fuck 2016 started out p.gay but then time went on and now everybody I don't like is getting blown the fuck out and it's kinda great

Porpoise101
August 12th, 2016, 03:41 PM
most white Bernie supporters (i.e. all of them) I know irl are smart enough to get this but don't: at this point you might as well just step into your Trumpabteilung boots because MAGA is the new Occupy Wall Street. worrying about your ideological purity to the point of staying in the Democratic Party in 2016 despite the Dems literally ordering you to open your mouth so they can shit into it seems kinda silly if not a little masochistic.
Well you are right. About 90% of Berners (this the right term?) support Clinton. Most of that 10% probably went to Jill (not Hill) Stein. I know one Berner-turned-Trumpie and he was already anti Clinton because he is a Serb. I think most Bernie people are quietly hoping for Clinton to be a one-term prez, but I think everyone understands that Hillary wants more.

Interesting thing about this race: It has most egocentric and ambitious candidates in recent history in my view.

mattsmith48
August 12th, 2016, 05:44 PM
Well you are right. About 90% of Berners (this the right term?) support Clinton. Most of that 10% probably went to Jill (not Hill) Stein. I know one Berner-turned-Trumpie and he was already anti Clinton because he is a Serb. I think most Bernie people are quietly hoping for Clinton to be a one-term prez, but I think everyone understands that Hillary wants more.

Interesting thing about this race: It has most egocentric and ambitious candidates in recent history in my view.

Ive said before I dont think whoever wins will be re-elected in 4 years

Paraxiom
August 12th, 2016, 06:29 PM
Ive said before I dont think whoever wins will be re-elected in 4 years

I am in a feeling to agree with you, but the end of the decade is very far away.

mattsmith48
August 12th, 2016, 08:15 PM
I am in a feeling to agree with you, but the end of the decade is very far away.

Unless Republican find someone even worst than Trump in 4 years or nominate him again or Hillary Clinton end up doing what she said shes gonna do getting people to trust her again I dont see she could win again in 2020.

phuckphace
August 12th, 2016, 08:45 PM
Well you are right. About 90% of Berners (this the right term?) support Clinton. Most of that 10% probably went to Jill (not Hill) Stein.

lol. all the Bern victims I know irl are mad at Bernie for betraying them to the establishment bitch. this one chick I smoke weed with had a Bernie sticker on her car but ripped it off after he endorsed Clinton. m'lady, your first clue was when he continued soliciting donations well past the point of a win being mathematically possible (second clue: superdelegates)

I've never heard anyone mention Jill Stein outside of the Internet. I think this confirms that millennials are so dumb they'd literally vote 90% Democrat if the Democratic candidate was the literal Hitler and the Republican was Gandhi

Interesting thing about this race: It has most egocentric and ambitious candidates in recent history in my view.

older people have told me that Trump's campaign reminds them of Reagan's in the 80s, which was the last time Democrats switched parties to vote Republican in any significant number. HIGH ENERGY

Dalcourt
August 12th, 2016, 09:57 PM
I think this confirms that millennials are so dumb they'd literally vote 90% Democrat if the Democratic candidate was the literal Hitler and the Republican was Gandhi


I don't think this is just a phenonemon about millenials...it's always been that most people like zombies vote for a certain party without even knowing what the candidate of the respective party will do just for the sake of voting for that said party cuz it's what is done in that certain area, group of people, family or whatever social circle you identify with.

That's the problem of democracy so many idiots voting without thinking.

PlasmaHam
August 12th, 2016, 11:08 PM
I don't think this is just a phenonemon about millenials...it's always been that most people like zombies vote for a certain party without even knowing what the candidate of the respective party will do just for the sake of voting for that said party cuz it's what is done in that certain area, group of people, family or whatever social circle you identify with.

That's the problem of democracy so many idiots voting without thinking.

Well, the Democrats main method of gaining votes is pandering to certain groups. The Mexicans, the gays, the feminists, the blacks, etc. The Republican party does that as well, but certainly not on the level as the Democrats.

One could argue the whole of Reconstruction was just an attempt by the Radical Republicans to gain more voters by enabling the freed blacks. This is just politics, been happening for years and will continue to do such.

Dalcourt
August 12th, 2016, 11:19 PM
Well, the Democrats main method of gaining votes is pandering to certain groups. The Mexicans, the gays, the feminists, the blacks, etc. The Republican party does that as well, but certainly not on the level as the Democrats.

One could argue the whole of Reconstruction was just an attempt by the Radical Republicans to gain more voters by enabling the freed blacks. This is just politics, been happening for years and will continue to do such.

Every party needs certain groups to appeal to of course...
It's just wrong in my opinion to vote Democrate or Republican cuz your family and friends do and that's the problem.
People won't vote for Trump cuz he's the right choice but because he's Republican and they always vote Republican and the same goes for Clinton if the masses would really take time to read what they are voting for and really listen to the speeches a lot of votes would be different.

Porpoise101
August 12th, 2016, 11:26 PM
older people have told me that Trump's campaign reminds them of Reagan's in the 80s, which was the last time Democrats switched parties to vote Republican in any significant number. HIGH ENERGY
Yeah, there are definitely some similarities. Both assembled a new coalition of voters. Both appealed to the white American. Both ran against an unpopular candidate. The difference between Trump and Reagan lie in the ideology and the personality. The ideology doesn't matter because it has the backing of the party. The personality does. Reagan was a B-list actor who was approachable and down to earth. Trump is an abrasive billionaire superman. So Trump does not have the personality in his favor. I'm interested to see if that even matters though.

Paraxiom
August 13th, 2016, 07:03 AM
Unless Republican find someone even worst than Trump in 4 years or nominate him again or Hillary Clinton end up doing what she said shes gonna do getting people to trust her again I dont see she could win again in 2020.

It's messed up overall.

I should have added that this, of course, presumes that there will be enough stability for there to be an election in 2020 (these are diverse and changing times).


I think this confirms that millennials are so dumb they'd literally vote 90% Democrat if the Democratic candidate was the literal Hitler and the Republican was Gandhi

I second Peanut_ in that the millennials are not all-round dumber than the older generations.

Reise
August 13th, 2016, 07:08 AM
I think this confirms that millennials are so dumb they'd literally vote 90% Democrat if the Democratic candidate was the literal Hitler and the Republican was Gandhi
Doesn't Gandhi have some past of pedophilia and antisemitism?

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 11:05 AM
Doesn't Gandhi have some past of pedophilia and antisemitism?

Pedophilia? I didnt know Gandhi was Catholic are you sure you didnt mixed up with Pope Benedict?

It's messed up overall.

I should have added that this, of course, presumes that there will be enough stability for there to be an election in 2020 (these are diverse and changing times).

What kind of even could stop the 2020 election from happening? (If Hillary wins this year, If Trump wins everyone will be dead because of nuclear war hes gonna start)

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 11:34 AM
I've never heard anyone mention Jill Stein outside of the Internet. I think this confirms that millennials are so dumb they'd literally vote 90% Democrat if the Democratic candidate was the literal Hitler and the Republican was Gandhi

Why not earing about Jill Stein somewhere else than the Internet and not wanting a neo-nazi to become president confirming that millennials are dumb?

older people have told me that Trump's campaign reminds them of Reagan's in the 80s, which was the last time Democrats switched parties to vote Republican in any significant number. HIGH ENERGY

Really, Regan insulted every minorities possible, promoted hatred and violence, and told his supporter to grab a gun and kill his opponent?

PlasmaHam
August 13th, 2016, 12:07 PM
Why not earing about Jill Stein somewhere else than the Internet and not wanting a neo-nazi to become president confirming that millennials are dumb?
I'm all for third parties, but I do have to agree. Jill Stein is awful, I don't blame people for not caring about her.

Really, Regan insulted every minorities possible, promoted hatred and violence, and told his supporter to grab a gun and kill his opponent?

Reagan and Trump are similar in the fact that they are very good orators. They are able to engage passions and unspoken truths within people. Reagan was communism, while Trump is immigration and ISIS. They both have the git-r-done and no nosense attitude that people love

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 12:09 PM
I'm all for third parties, but I do have to agree. Jill Stein is awful, I don't blame people for not caring about her.

What makes her awful?

Porpoise101
August 13th, 2016, 02:34 PM
Doesn't Gandhi have some past of pedophilia and antisemitism?
No he wasn't a pedo as far as I know, but he was anti black and anti Semitic. This changed in his life and he became less so towards the end of his life.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 02:43 PM
What makes her awful?
Quite-almost, everything she claims about economics.

Pedophilia? I didnt know Gandhi was Catholic are you sure you didnt mixed up with Pope Benedict?
Red Herring.

it was totally "hip" to be a young Democrat and oppose the Iraq war for all the coolest, hippest reasons: the occupant of the White House was "R" and the people being bombed were brown, so the Left deemed it worthy of opposing. now in mid-2016 we're actually seeing Republican voters saying "maybe if we stay home this time and wait it out it'll be better for us" while the Democrats literally want to start WWIII with Russia because Putin made some degenerates cry into their organic fair-trade vodka. top kek.
I agree with Porpoise101's response.

But, as someone that opposes the Iraq war and past engagements in the ME, but supports containing Russia, that's not because I'm anti-war but because in the case of Russia, containing them is long-run optimal. Remember, Russia has no natural geopolitical anchor, it's security can only be founded in expansion, and the forming considerable buffers in cold-lands. Letting it do that, after spending literally 200 years pushing it back to it's current borders, because Westerners - and by this I mean, US citizens - have decided to have a crisis of confidence about their historic role, is nothing short of fucking nuts.

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 02:56 PM
Quite-almost, everything she claims about economics.

what exacly? I know you dont agree with the free college and forgeting all student loan debt what else you dont like?

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 03:23 PM
what exacly? I know you dont agree with the free college and forgeting all student loan debt what else you dont like?
Her plan is quite under-developed but:
Create millions of jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, and conservation.
Refusing to discuss net effects, though I agree with this as an enviormentalist.

Create living-wage jobs for every American who needs work, replacing unemployment offices with employment offices.
Forcing the employment rate below the natural rate, has never ended well.

In the medium-run, inflation expectations adjust, and we end up in an inflationary, lower-productivity-inducing death-spiral.

Advance workers rights to form unions
Need legal specifics.

achieve workplace democracy
I tend to agree with this depending on the extent it is introduced, but need legal specifics, and a description of a workable model for capital markets depending on the extent that it is introduced. If there is a complete transition to co-operatives, it should be noted that these tend to prompt heightened levels of unemployment.

and keep a fair share of the wealth they create.
What the fuck is 'fair share' supposed to mean.

Guarantee economic human rights, including access to food, water, housing, and utilities, with effective anti-poverty programs to ensure every American a life of dignity.
Need specifics. Sounds like, more welfare cash.

Establish an improved “Medicare For All” single-payer public health insurance program to provide everyone with quality health care, at huge savings.
I agree with this, but worth noting that a transition cannot be made overnight for all the reasons I discussed before. The current setup of US healthcare is the product of a legacy of decisions. Transferring to single-payer is not possible with considerable reskilling, and a considerable re-arrangement of resources.

Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude. Guarantee tuition-free, world-class public education from pre-school through university. End high stakes testing and public school privatization.
Nope.

Set a $15/hour federal minimum wage.
Nope.

Break up “too-big-to-fail” banks
Likelihood is though, a new generation of small, agile Fintech startups is going to displace the current behemoths inside the next decade or so.

I won't comment on this though, since I don't have a position.

democratize the Federal Reserve
This is the worst bit of the entire programme.

Reject gentrification as a model of economic development.
In favour of what exactly? Nothing that will work, is the correct response.

Make Wall Street, big corporations, and the rich pay their fair share of taxes.
Just increasing taxes on the rich isn't going to solve a thing.

Create democratically run public banks and utilities.
Nope.

Replace corporate trade agreements with fair trade agreements.
What the fuck does this even mean?

End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines. Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators.
Fine.

Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
In other words, create economic rents for organic farmers, and undermine the food-security of poor people.

GMOs also shouldn't need to be labelled, either.

Protect the rights of future generations.
No idea what this means.

---

The rest is all social stuff.

Reise
August 13th, 2016, 03:31 PM
Vlerchan

Has she ever said that she wants an unemployment rate below the natural one?
I'm asking because I don't see what "replacing unemployment offices with employment offices" does mean.

GMOs should be labelled btw (if it means informing the consumer on the nature of the food), one should have the right and the ability to not eat GMOs if he/she wants so.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 03:36 PM
Has she ever said that she wants an unemployment rate below the natural one?
I'm asking because I don't see what "replacing unemployment offices with employment offices" does mean.
Create living-wage jobs for every American who needs work, replacing unemployment offices with employment offices.

Should have quoted the full thing :).

GMOs should be labelled btw (if it means informing the consumer on the nature of the food), one should have the right and the ability to not eat GMOs if he/she wants so.
So far as I can see, there isn't a large enough difference between GMO, and non-GMO, foodstuffs to warrant legal enforcement of regulation here, at cost to the public taxpayer.

Other producers are free to label their goods, GMO-free, though.

Reise
August 13th, 2016, 04:19 PM
Vlerchan

I'm not especially comfortable with the "who needs to work" as it seems to lack of accuracy but I see nothing that can let think that she aims at an absolute full-employment.

Ah, well:
Our Full Employment Program will create 16 million jobs through a community-based direct employment initiative that will be nationally funded, locally controlled, and democratically protected against conflicts of interest and pay-to-play influence peddling. The program will directly create jobs in the public & the private sector. Instead of going to an unemployment office when you can't find work, you can simply go to the local employment office to find a public sector job. These 16 million jobs are 8 times the number sought in Obama's recent jobs proposal.
From the Green Party 2012 People's State of the Union speech (January 2012) apparently.

GMOs are the future, and I think that's a good thing in general.
However the "natural" argument of the other "more traditional" types of food probably still has great days ahead, especially in countries where GMOs aren't that much cultivated, or are even illegal. Those countries will probably require that if something contains GMOS, it has to be specified.
The fact that some producers or distributors label their product as "non GMOs" is really just marketing. Conversely, legally informing the consumer of what he/she is eating is more of a moral issue.

mattsmith48
August 13th, 2016, 06:44 PM
Her plan is quite under-developed but:
Create millions of jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, and conservation.
Refusing to discuss net effects, though I agree with this as an enviormentalist.

Create living-wage jobs for every American who needs work, replacing unemployment offices with employment offices.
Forcing the employment rate below the natural rate, has never ended well.

In the medium-run, inflation expectations adjust, and we end up in an inflationary, lower-productivity-inducing death-spiral.

Advance workers rights to form unions
Need legal specifics.

achieve workplace democracy
I tend to agree with this depending on the extent it is introduced, but need legal specifics, and a description of a workable model for capital markets depending on the extent that it is introduced. If there is a complete transition to co-operatives, it should be noted that these tend to prompt heightened levels of unemployment.

and keep a fair share of the wealth they create.
What the fuck is 'fair share' supposed to mean.

Guarantee economic human rights, including access to food, water, housing, and utilities, with effective anti-poverty programs to ensure every American a life of dignity.
Need specifics. Sounds like, more welfare cash.

Establish an improved “Medicare For All” single-payer public health insurance program to provide everyone with quality health care, at huge savings.
I agree with this, but worth noting that a transition cannot be made overnight for all the reasons I discussed before. The current setup of US healthcare is the product of a legacy of decisions. Transferring to single-payer is not possible with considerable reskilling, and a considerable re-arrangement of resources.

Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude. Guarantee tuition-free, world-class public education from pre-school through university. End high stakes testing and public school privatization.
Nope.

Set a $15/hour federal minimum wage.
Nope.

Break up “too-big-to-fail” banks
Likelihood is though, a new generation of small, agile Fintech startups is going to displace the current behemoths inside the next decade or so.

I won't comment on this though, since I don't have a position.

democratize the Federal Reserve
This is the worst bit of the entire programme.

Reject gentrification as a model of economic development.
In favour of what exactly? Nothing that will work, is the correct response.

Make Wall Street, big corporations, and the rich pay their fair share of taxes.
Just increasing taxes on the rich isn't going to solve a thing.

Create democratically run public banks and utilities.
Nope.

Replace corporate trade agreements with fair trade agreements.
What the fuck does this even mean?

End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines. Protect our public lands, water supplies, biological diversity, parks, and pollinators.
Fine.

Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
In other words, create economic rents for organic farmers, and undermine the food-security of poor people.

GMOs also shouldn't need to be labelled, either.

Protect the rights of future generations.
No idea what this means.

---

The rest is all social stuff.

Im not gonna debate you on any of this. I just want to say that her plan for a transition to 100% clean renewable energy would take less time than Trumps plan to deport all 11 millions undocumented immigrants currently living in the US.

Vlerchan
August 13th, 2016, 06:51 PM
I just want to say that her plan for a transition to 100% clean renewable energy would take less time than Trumps plan to deport all 11 millions undocumented immigrants currently living in the US.
I've been pretty consistent in thinking Trump's plan is pretty fucking nuts, though.

:)

phuckphace
August 17th, 2016, 11:17 AM
http://i.imgur.com/ph3g2fo.jpg

Paraxiom
August 20th, 2016, 07:41 PM
So Trump has recently turned to a more apologetic and 'moderate' appearance, the second most bizarre event I have seen in the past week.

This complicates the view that his election race is a big opportunist abuse of the system for advertising him and his property. It's tempting to think that he actually wants the position, again.

If I saw this thread 12 months ago I'd be wondering wtf is going on and what it means. Even with the massive illumination of knowing the context, it's still not fully making sense to me. I'm alright with not ever finding full sense even.

Vlerchan
August 21st, 2016, 09:59 AM
phuckphace

Ignore source.

Washington (CNN)It's still undecided whether Donald Trump will continue to support forced deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US, his campaign manager said Sunday.

"To be determined," said Kellyanne Conway, Trump's new campaign manager, after repeated questioning by CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/21/politics/kellyanne-conway-donald-trump-deportation-force-tbd/index.html

http://viralpirate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/mitt-romney-donald-trump-wont-win-the-gop-nomination-1050x700.jpg

AgentHomo
August 22nd, 2016, 10:07 AM
I hope he does. But please don't say his name or Republicans. Both are triggering for me.

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2016, 11:06 AM
I hope he does. But please don't say his name or Republicans. Both are triggering for me.

So we use their real name Hitler and Nazi Party

Stronk Serb
August 22nd, 2016, 12:26 PM
I hope he wins, just to see the liberals cry and get triggered.

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2016, 06:02 PM
I hope he wins, just to see the liberals cry and get triggered.

You understand that a nuclear war would kill everyone on earth right?

Vlerchan
August 22nd, 2016, 06:03 PM
But please don't say his name or Republicans. Both are triggering for me.
Please don't be serious, please don't be serious, please don't be serious...

---

Is anyone also going to discuss Trump's motionings to a softer stance of immigration, and his move to the centre-ground? It seems, if anything, evidence that he is certainly not going to quit.

You understand that a nuclear war would kill everyone on earth right?
Continuing to insist that Trump is going to start a nuclear war, does not increase the likelihood of Trump starting a nuclear war.

It's these sort of woeful exaggerations about candidates - the totally unbelievable ones - which makes it so much easier for republicans to swallow the bombastic bullshit their candidates are accused of, and actually commit.

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2016, 06:13 PM
Continuing to insist that Trump is going to start a nuclear war, does not increase the likelihood of Trump starting a nuclear war.

It's these sort of woeful exaggerations about candidates - the totally unbelievable ones - which makes it so much easier for republicans to swallow the bombastic bullshit their candidates are accused of, and actually commit.

Do you trust him to not use nuclear weapons unless the US is attacked by nuclear weapons by another country?

Vlerchan
August 22nd, 2016, 06:15 PM
Do you trust him to not use nuclear weapons unless the US is attacked by nuclear weapons by another country?
I trust him to not use nuclear weapons, unless faced with a realistic nuclear threat.

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2016, 06:17 PM
I trust him to not use nuclear weapons, unless faced with a realistic nuclear threat.

not a threat only a nuclear attack

Vlerchan
August 22nd, 2016, 06:20 PM
not a threat only a nuclear attack
Like I said, I believe he'd engage in preemptive strikes, when the United States is threatened by nuclear weapons. However, the threat level would need to be quite strong, and you can be certain he would consult with advisers.

To add to that, the likelihood of the United States being threatened with nuclear weapons, is very, very slim.

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2016, 06:25 PM
Like I said, I believe he'd engage in preemptive strikes, when the United States is threatened by nuclear weapons.

To add to that, the likelihood of the United States being threatened with nuclear weapons, is very, very slim.

You can't use nukes just because someone might use one against you.

What about North Korea or Russia? What about if ISIS or another terrorist group gets an nuclear weapon?

Vlerchan
August 22nd, 2016, 06:32 PM
You can't use nukes just because someone might use one against you.
If you have no other choice, you have no other choice. If someone is making a realisable threat of nuclear destruction against the United States, which would revolve around holding them to ransom for some reason, too, then it should be made clear that the United States will target them with nuclear weapons of their own. If it is the case that this is unavoidable, then rolling the dice is the single option.

Nuclear weapons are only a viable deterrent, because stakeholders are willing to use them when the time calls for it.

What about North Korea or Russia? What about if ISIS or another terrorist group gets an nuclear weapon?
North Korea doesn't make viable threats.

Russia does, so if Russia threatened the United States with nuclear weapons, and diplomacy failed, what do you believe that the United States should do: Roll over?

ISIL are a non-state actor, so targeting them with nuclear weapons in return is inadvisable. You're better off using proximate conventional bombing.

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2016, 07:05 PM
North Korea doesn't make viable threats.

Russia does, so if Russia threatened the United States with nuclear weapons, and diplomacy failed, what do you believe that the United States should do: Roll over?

ISIL are a non-state actor, so targeting them with nuclear weapons in return is inadvisable. You're better off using proximate conventional bombing.

North Korea could eventually be a real threat to the US or Europe they are already one in East Asia.

Obama is bombing weddings and hospitals with drones and he's smart and not racist and xenophobic, if Trump is president and ISIS gets a nuclear weapons and attack the US with it, don't you think he will nuke the middle east without thinking if he's actually killing ISIS.

He said that he would use nuclear weapons against ISIS if they use biological weapons and that he doesn't rule out using them in europe or in the middle east as a negociation tool. He also said ''Why Can't We Use Nuclear Weapons If We Have Them?'' You said the use of nuclear weapons by the US is justify if there is a real threat, if Trumps say and do shit like this with a country that as a nuclear weapons he's the threat that justify the that country to use their nukes on the US. Also we are talking about someone who believe in conspiracy theories, someone who gets his news from Fox News and said ''everything I know I get it from the Internet''. How are you sure he will not use nuclear weapons on a false threat.

Reise
August 22nd, 2016, 07:11 PM
Do you trust him to not use nuclear weapons unless the US is attacked by nuclear weapons by another country?
I doubt the US Army would agree to launch a nuclear attack without any reason.
The fact that you have the Gold Codes does not mean you can realistically use them as you want.


What about North Korea or Russia? What about if ISIS or another terrorist group gets an nuclear weapon?
In case of a nuclear attack from North Korea there are several points that need to be highlighted:
- NK's arsenal is really small (http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/North_Korean_Fissile_Material_Stocks_Jan_30_2015_revised_Oct_5_2015-Final.pdf) and by small I mean both in power and in number of warheads, I don't even think there is enough to neutralize all American nuclear launching facilities (without counting submarines).
- NK's missiles have a maximum range of approx. 4,000 Km (BM25 Musudan). This is actually just enough to reach the Rat Island (extreme West of Alaska), in other words even if North Korea tries to attack the US territory this won't even be that big of a deal.
- This latter point is supported by the USA's capacity to prevent such an attack by the use of their Anti-Ballsitic Missiles.
- In case of hostilities with North Korea the US would really take a ridiculous amount of time to neutralize it.

The only problem would be an attack on South Korea or Japan that will be more difficult to intercept.

I'm highly skeptical regarding Russia's wish to bring death and desolation. Putin wants Russia to be a "super-power" just like in the good old times, not kill everybody.

A nuclear attack on ISIS is really irrelevant as well. For other reasons, as enounced by Vlerchan, other ways to bomb it are way more efficient - and "acceptable" for the international community -.

Vlerchan
August 22nd, 2016, 07:19 PM
North Korea could eventually be a real threat to the US or Europe they are already one in East Asia.
North Korea having never fired on South Korea, or Japan, whilst having a notably deranged leader is probably a good point to examine when we consider whether Trump, himself, would engage in nuclear warfare.

Everything Reise said about NK and Russia is also worth reading, and is the reason I don't believe that Trump will even need to make this sort of decision.


He said that he would use nuclear weapons against ISIS if they use biological weapons and that he doesn't rule out using them in europe or in the middle east as a negociation tool. He also said ''Why Can't We Use Nuclear Weapons If We Have Them?'' You said the use of nuclear weapons by the US is justify if there is a real threat, if Trumps say and do shit like this with a country that as a nuclear weapons he's the threat that justify the that country to use their nukes on the US. Also we are talking about someone who believe in conspiracy theories, someone who gets his news from Fox News and said ''everything I know I get it from the Internet''. How are you sure he will not use nuclear weapons on a false threat.
It's first, a much bigger decision to use nuclear weapons than it is to use conventional weapons, which is the reason pointing to Obama's use of conventional weapons's isn't relevant to this discussion.

Furthermore,

When it comes to using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State, Donald Trump said Thursday that he would be the last person to do so. But that does not mean he would completely remove the option, remarking in an interview that he would "never, ever" keep it off the table.
"I don't want to rule out anything. I will be the last to use nuclear weapons," the Republican presidential front-runner told NBC's "Today" at the end of a telephone interview. "It's a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has. It's not global warming, like our president said. It's the power of weapons, in particular nuclear."

Trump continued, "I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be."
"I will be the last," he said. "But I will never, ever rule it out."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-nuclear-strike-islamic-state-222565

I also think he will be even more constrained, when he makes the decision under the supervision of a large number of trained, well-educated officials.

mattsmith48
August 22nd, 2016, 07:47 PM
North Korea having never fired on South Korea, or Japan, whilst having a notably deranged leader is probably a good point to examine when we consider whether Trump, himself, would engage in nuclear warfare.

Everything Reise said about NK and Russia is also worth reading, and is the reason I don't believe that Trump will even need to make this sort of decision.


It's first, a much bigger decision to use nuclear weapons than it is to use conventional weapons, which is the reason pointing to Obama's use of conventional weapons's isn't relevant to this discussion.

Furthermore,

When it comes to using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State, Donald Trump said Thursday that he would be the last person to do so. But that does not mean he would completely remove the option, remarking in an interview that he would "never, ever" keep it off the table.
"I don't want to rule out anything. I will be the last to use nuclear weapons," the Republican presidential front-runner told NBC's "Today" at the end of a telephone interview. "It's a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has. It's not global warming, like our president said. It's the power of weapons, in particular nuclear."

Trump continued, "I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be."
"I will be the last," he said. "But I will never, ever rule it out."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-nuclear-strike-islamic-state-222565

I also think he will be even more constrained, when he makes the decision under the supervision of a large number of trained, well-educated officials.


In 2008, then–Vice President Dick Cheney said something pretty chilling about nuclear weapons during a Fox News appearance. According to Cheney, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever:

He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.

"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead."

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

Reise
August 22nd, 2016, 07:54 PM
In 2008, then–Vice President Dick Cheney said something pretty chilling about nuclear weapons during a Fox News appearance. According to Cheney, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever:

He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.

"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead."

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes
I had already said that in a previous thread, it was in response to Stronk Serb.
It's pretty much true, except that the Nuclear Football in itself is not enough, the identity of the president has to be checked and the order "verbally" validated. It's the Army that is in charge of the warheads, they are basically the first to know if there is an immediate threat so I believe they can pretty easily check if using nuclear weapons is necessary or not.
I am not an expert in the US Army protocols and behaviors though.
History has shown that even the military are reluctant in such a decision, even confronted to alleged evidences. The story of Stanislav Petrov being an example.

Vlerchan
August 22nd, 2016, 07:57 PM
eney said something pretty chilling about nuclear weapons during a Fox News appearance. According to Cheney, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever:
He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.
This may sound like Cheneyian hyperbole. But Ron Rosenbaum, a journalist who wrote a book about America’s nuclear weapons, looked into Cheney’s claims as part of a 2011 Slate piece. He concluded that they were basically accurate.

"No one could come up with a definitive constitutional refutation of this," Rosenbaum writes. "Any president could, on his own, leave a room, and in 25 minutes, 70 million (or more than that) would be dead."
That it is possible, does not mean it is in any way likely. If a situation occurred, where nuclear weapons were an option at all, action without consultation isn't something that's a realistic outcome. If you believe that, in a moment of sheer depravity, Trump is going to step out of his office and kill 70 million people, then I'm not sure there's much of a point continuing this discussion: you're clearly well too entrenched in your priors.

phuckphace
August 22nd, 2016, 08:45 PM
phuckphace

Ignore source.

Washington (CNN)It's still undecided whether Donald Trump will continue to support forced deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the US, his campaign manager said Sunday.

"To be determined," said Kellyanne Conway, Trump's new campaign manager, after repeated questioning by CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union."

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/21/politics/kellyanne-conway-donald-trump-deportation-force-tbd/index.html

image (http://viralpirate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/mitt-romney-donald-trump-wont-win-the-gop-nomination-1050x700.jpg)

yeah if Endlösung II gets canceled then I dip. screencap this.

If you believe that, in a moment of sheer depravity, Trump is going to step out of his office and kill 70 million people[...]

Trump has been most disappointing on this issue, I'm sorry to say

Stronk Serb
August 23rd, 2016, 03:26 AM
You understand that a nuclear war would kill everyone on earth right?

Which wouldn't happen because there are safeguards. I think the president needs the support of Congress or the Pentagon in order to launch nukes. The fact that you got triggered by this statement has already made my morning :)

Flapjack
August 23rd, 2016, 07:11 AM
Which wouldn't happen because there are safeguards. I think the president needs the support of Congress or the Pentagon in order to launch nukes. The fact that you got triggered by this statement has already made my morning :)
Can you provide a source for that? I don't think it is true.
Even if the U.S. isn’t under attack, the president can act if they feel there is a threat of “imminent” attack—practically, this means the president can deploy whenever they want.
Source (http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/could-trump-launch-nuclear-war/)

mattsmith48
August 23rd, 2016, 08:34 AM
Which wouldn't happen because there are safeguards. I think the president needs the support of Congress or the Pentagon in order to launch nukes. The fact that you got triggered by this statement has already made my morning :)

Like I posted earlier there is no safeguards when it comes to launching nuclear weapons beside the launch codes, the president doesn't have to check with anyone and no one as to agree with him. The president technically have to check with the secretary of defense first but he's legally obligated to do it even if he doesnt agree with the president and doesn't have a veto on this.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

Vlerchan
August 23rd, 2016, 09:44 AM
Unless we all agree with the image of Trump as getting off on serial murder this diversion about the constitutional powers of the president in using nuclear arms is irrelevant.

Like I quoted above: Trump isn't keen to use nuclear weapons and believes that it's "a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has". The continued insistence otherwise is built on partisan prejudices.

mattsmith48
August 23rd, 2016, 10:06 AM
Unless we all agree with the image of Trump as getting off on serial murder this diversion about the constitutional powers of the president in using nuclear arms is irrelevant.

Like I quoted above: Trump isn't keen to use nuclear weapons and believes that it's "a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has". The continued insistence otherwise is built on partisan prejudices.

How are we sure he's not gonna nuke someone just because he's mad at them? From what we've seen from his campaign and even before im not, and this is before considering that second coming of Hitler thing.

He is also the 1st US presidential candidate in history who said he might use nukes even against countries who don't have any. The is also that thing earlier in his campaign where he said that we should let South Korea and Japan get their own nuclear weapons to protect them against North Korea.

''The power of weaponry'' isn't the single greatest problem in the world today the biggest problem today is climate change.

Gwen
August 23rd, 2016, 10:08 AM
All I want is for someone to replace Hillary who won't destroy the country and my then my own country's economy or Trump to get in. At this point he has become the lesser evil by a large margin, if he quits now and TPP goes through I think I might actually cry. All the work that has gone into protecting the Australian dollar and our local manufacturing will just be gone in days. Maybe there will finally be a time when I'm thankful we only dropped to 76c to $1USD :(

Vlerchan
August 23rd, 2016, 10:38 AM
How are we sure he's not gonna nuke someone just because he's mad at them?
This is an argument to ignorance.

But it's clear from his speeches that Trump sees using nuclear weapons as a big deal.

From what we've seen from his campaign and even before im not[.]
But it's clear from his speeches that Trump sees using nuclear weapons as a big deal.

and this is before considering that second coming of Hitler thing.
Trump has much more in common with FDR than Hitler.

He is also the 1st US presidential candidate in history who said he might use nukes even against countries who don't have any.
Source please.

Truman also both used nuclear weapons against non-nuclear Japan and threatened non-nuclear Iran with them. Off the top of my head I don't recall a candidate who has claimed he'd resort to them but I have far from an encyclopedic knowledge of American presidential speeches.

The is also that thing earlier in his campaign where he said that we should let South Korea and Japan get their own nuclear weapons to protect them against North Korea.
I disagree with that.

---

I'll defend TPP later :).

PlasmaHam
August 23rd, 2016, 11:30 AM
How are we sure he's not gonna nuke someone just because he's mad at them? From what we've seen from his campaign and even before im not, and this is before considering that second coming of Hitler thing.
Trump is egotistical, but he isn't an idiot. He knows good and well what would happen if he ever called for nuclear bombings. He is willing to use nukes if necessary, but there is no way ever that he will nuke somebody over a disagreement.

Presidents have always used WMD's to threaten other countries. Truman threaten nukes during Korea, basically every Cold War president threatened nuclear war sometime against the communists. Yet it never happened. Simply threatening to use nukes is often more effective than using them.

He is also the 1st US presidential candidate in history who said he might use nukes even against countries who don't have any.
Truman threaten nukes against a non-nuclear China and Korea during the Korean War. He also used them against non-nuclear Japan.
The is also that thing earlier in his campaign where he said that we should let South Korea and Japan get their own nuclear weapons to protect them against North Korea.
Japan has their own personal reasons for not having nuclear weapons. Being the only country to have nuclear bombs used against you puts nuclear weapons in a negative light. and I'm pretty sure South Korea doesn't want to escalate things with the North by gaining nuclear arms. South Korea is technically in a dual nuclear weapon ban with the North, and even if the North is breaking that I doubt they will too.


''The power of weaponry'' isn't the single greatest problem in the world today the biggest problem today is climate change.
Personally, I am far more worried about nuclear war than the idea that our Earth is getting slightly hotter. If you really think climate change is the most important factor ever, then Jill Stein is waiting for you.

Reise
August 23rd, 2016, 02:03 PM
mattsmith48
Okay, gonna be honest, that's pretty ridiculous to argue so long on the possibility that the US president wakes up one day and destroys a country.
I haven't found anything proving that the president can't technically order a nuclear attack when he wants but it looks more than plausible that the Army won't allow it without a clear reason.
It'd be also stupid to think that the president has absolute power on that.

If you're still wondering if Trump will destroy your house you should know that every year the US Army (EDIT: The Joint Chiefs of Staff, constituted of high ranked military but attached to the Department of Defense) publishes a report for The Congress regarding its actual position in the current geopolitical context. And what's fucking great is that these yearly reports are made public (only the one of the current year is private).
Anyway I then checked The National Military Strategy of the United States of America (http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/National_Military_Strategy_2015.pdf) of 2015, the only mentions of their nuclear weaponry concerns nuclear deterrence, I checked every single time they were using the word "nuclear", nothing is said about a direct unilateral attack, but it is clearly stated that the US will continue to follow the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/defenseReviews/NPR/2010_Nuclear_Posture_Review_Report.pdf), which gives the precise actual position of the US about their nuclear arsenal.
And, guess what, it is said that this arsenal has to be used only for deterrence (EDIT 2: They have also mentioned the "in case of vital necessity etc." but I think this part is obvious).

Stronk Serb
August 23rd, 2016, 07:13 PM
Can you provide a source for that? I don't think it is true.

Source (http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/could-trump-launch-nuclear-war/)

Like I posted earlier there is no safeguards when it comes to launching nuclear weapons beside the launch codes, the president doesn't have to check with anyone and no one as to agree with him. The president technically have to check with the secretary of defense first but he's legally obligated to do it even if he doesnt agree with the president and doesn't have a veto on this.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

Because if he nukes someone out of a tantrum, which is as likely as with Clinton, the following will happen:
a) Public support would drastically drop because last time nuclear weapons were used was 61 years ago.
b) Congress would begin impeaching him and probably go through it.
c) After he is impeached they might ship him to Hague for war crimes or someone else might, nukes are only used as a deterrent. Russia and China are probably going to do something, maybe even fire back if they were targeted.
d) He won't live until the end of his term if he does it.

Dalcourt
August 23rd, 2016, 08:40 PM
I really don't understand how anyone can think Trump or anyone else for that matter would use nukes.
It would be the stupidest thing to do and not even Kim Jong-un or Trump would be stupid enough to use them. What benefit would if do Trump anyway? And even if he wins he will be president and not an almighty dictator. I said that before Trump is very much overrated and overestimated by you guys...end of the day he is just harmless far more talking than action. Just look at his campaign it's ridiculous how he tries to make amends now as he loses support. So not very likely.

Other than that environmental issues should be tackled...everyone who denies climate change and the fact that it affects us all and will do even affect us more in the future lives in a bubble. But I'm afraid that neither Jill Stein and her party as well as other environmentalists will find a solution to this problem. But I stop on the whole climate change issue cuz it would lead too far.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 03:08 AM
Because if he nukes someone out of a tantrum
What makes you think it is as likely as Clinton... Trump is the immature kid that knows nothing of foreign policy and flip flops in the same sentence.

BravoZulu
August 24th, 2016, 05:19 AM
Trump is actually really smart.

His strategy was to play to the cameras during the primary, however he should have curtailed it when he won the primary. His biggest mistake was to continue the charade.

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2016, 09:43 AM
This is an argument to ignorance.

But it's clear from his speeches that Trump sees using nuclear weapons as a big deal.


But it's clear from his speeches that Trump sees using nuclear weapons as a big deal.

Are you sure he's not gonna nuke someone just because he's mad at them? We've seen how he treats people who doesnt agree with him during his campaign.


Trump has much more in common with FDR than Hitler.

How? did FDR deport 11 millions people and an entire religion? I know someone who tried it and its not FDR

Source please.

Truman also both used nuclear weapons against non-nuclear Japan and threatened non-nuclear Iran with them. Off the top of my head I don't recall a candidate who has claimed he'd resort to them but I have far from an encyclopedic knowledge of American presidential speeches.

People say using nuclear weapons in japan seem like it was necessary at the time. I kinda disagree with that the US had already won that war, not using nuclear weapons it might had took a few more months before Japan surrender. On the other hand its a good thing it was use on the field once before someone else get nuclear weapons so humans could see how terrible of a weapons it is and made other people think twice before using them again. Even Truman after he used them the two times in Japan said ''this is not a regular weapon of war and shouldn't be used again. This weapon does not kill soldiers but women and children.'' Even he the only person to use nuclear weapons understood the severity of using nuclear weapons. Trump does not understand that

Personally, I am far more worried about nuclear war than the idea that our Earth is getting slightly hotter. If you really think climate change is the most important factor ever, then Jill Stein is waiting for you.

(For what you wrote before this just see above.)

Nuclear war is like getting shot in the head its a fast and painless death unless you against the odds you don't die from it immidiatly. Climate Change is like HIV it will kill you slowly and painfully unless you do something about it to slow it down until we can figure out how to cure it, or you die from something else.

In any other election I would say vote for someone like Jill Stein but with this election if I say that and people do it, it might cause the fourth reich, and give access to nuclear weapons to a Neo-Nazi.

mattsmith48
Okay, gonna be honest, that's pretty ridiculous to argue so long on the possibility that the US president wakes up one day and destroys a country.
I haven't found anything proving that the president can't technically order a nuclear attack when he wants but it looks more than plausible that the Army won't allow it without a clear reason.
It'd be also stupid to think that the president has absolute power on that.

It was said earlier the system is desine to asure that anyone who attack the US with nuclear weapons that country will be nuked too. Its scary to think that the president of the US has the ability without obstruction from everyone to make a decision and 25 minutes later the end of the world as begins, but its the truth. Im not even sure the millitary would even know if they are the 1st to attack or not.

Because if he nukes someone out of a tantrum, which is as likely as with Clinton, the following will happen:
a) Public support would drastically drop because last time nuclear weapons were used was 61 years ago.
b) Congress would begin impeaching him and probably go through it.
c) After he is impeached they might ship him to Hague for war crimes or someone else might, nukes are only used as a deterrent. Russia and China are probably going to do something, maybe even fire back if they were targeted.
d) He won't live until the end of his term if he does it.

Hillary Clinton does understand foreign policy and know the consiquences of using nukes, someone who say ''Nuclear weapons why don't we use them if we make them'' does not.

Trump impeached or triled for war crimes is irrelevant when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons because everyone will be dead. If he's Impeached for something else like lets say torture, than his vice-fuhrer would take over, I certainly trust Mike Pence with nuclear weapons and he would become the 1st gay US president, but he as bad if not worst than Trump on climate change and I like breathing.

Vlerchan
August 24th, 2016, 10:01 AM
Are you sure he's not gonna nuke someone just because he's mad at them?
Yes.

Repeating this question with a different wording of the same statement tagged onto the end is doing little to alter my opinion.

How? did FDR deport 11 millions people and an entire religion? I know someone who tried it and its not FDR
No. FDR rather deported or placed inside concentration (internment) camps an entire group based on race.

If I'm quite honest I find that comparing Trumps pronouncements about Jews and Hispanics though belittles the actual horrors that Jews faced. Even for rhetorical purposes it's altogether disgusting to conflate the two.

People say using nuclear weapons in japan seem like it was necessary at the time. I kinda disagree with that the US had already won that war, not using nuclear weapons it might had took a few more months before Japan surrender. On the other hand its a good thing it was use on the field once before someone else get nuclear weapons so humans could see how terrible of a weapons it is and made other people think twice before using them again. Even Truman after he used them the two times in Japan said ''this is not a regular weapon of war and shouldn't be used again. This weapon does not kill soldiers but women and children.'' Even he the only person to use nuclear weapons understood the severity of using nuclear weapons. Trump does not understand that
In other words: there is no source.

Please also read the previous posts I have made. I quoted Trump - twice - stating that the use of nuclear weapons had horrible consequences and he'd be the last to use them.

PlasmaHam
August 24th, 2016, 10:50 AM
Are you sure he's not gonna nuke someone just because he's mad at them? We've seen how he treats people who doesnt agree with him during his campaign.

Trump is not going to nuke a country because he has a disagreement with them. And there is no way on Earth the military and other government officials will actually launch nukes unless they know there is a considerable reason. The president might have the launch codes, but that doesn't mean he can launch nukes without military and government cooperation. Nukes don't launch themselves you know.


How? did FDR deport 11 millions people and an entire religion? I know someone who tried it and its not FDR
Well, FDR did do the interment camps for Japanese Americans, but that is unrelated, and is in my opinion worse. People who broke the law ought to pay the price, letting them pass is just going to promote more lawbreaking. All those illegal immigrants deserve to be deported, pay for the crime. As for Muslims, I haven't heard anything about Trump planning to deport all the Muslims. Could you source that?
People say using nuclear weapons in japan seem like it was necessary at the time. I kinda disagree with that the US had already won that war, not using nuclear weapons it might had took a few more months before Japan surrender. On the other hand its a good thing it was use on the field once before someone else get nuclear weapons so humans could see how terrible of a weapons it is and made other people think twice before using them again. Even Truman after he used them the two times in Japan said ''this is not a regular weapon of war and shouldn't be used again. This weapon does not kill soldiers but women and children.'' Even he the only person to use nuclear weapons understood the severity of using nuclear weapons. Trump does not understand that

A little history lesson. Japan was losing the war, but was still strong. There were two options to end the war. Nuke Japan, or attempt a land invasion of the Japanese mainland. Japanese defensiveness and lack of effective landing sites would have made the attack a huge massacre of lives on both sides. The estimates I've read have gone from 1 million to over 10 millions lives lost in an attempted invasion. So they went with the nukes, killing +/- 200,000 people. That is an awful lost of life, but the alternative could of be much worse. Trump understand nukes, please stop with the end of the world screams.

It was said earlier the system is desine to asure that anyone who attack the US with nuclear weapons that country will be nuked too. Its scary to think that the president of the US has the ability without obstruction from everyone to make a decision and 25 minutes later the end of the world as begins, but its the truth. Im not even sure the millitary would even know if they are the 1st to attack or not.
Refer to above.


Hillary Clinton does understand foreign policy and know the consiquences of using nukes, someone who say ''Nuclear weapons why don't we use them if we make them'' does not.

I guess taking money from foreign officials and not knowing how to classify information counts as being good at foreign policy these days.


Trump impeached or triled for war crimes is irrelevant when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons because everyone will be dead. If he's Impeached for something else like lets say torture, than his vice-fuhrer would take over, I certainly trust Mike Pence with nuclear weapons and he would become the 1st gay US president, but he as bad if not worst than Trump on climate change and I like breathing.
Once again with you and the woman/gay/black president stick. You shouldn't even consider that in an election. Is Mike Pence gay anyways? Because it seems like the media would be all over that. As Reise said, there is no way Trump can end the world, so stop blabbing about it.

PinkFloyd
August 24th, 2016, 12:19 PM
I don't think he'll quit, but I do think he will lose. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Clinton supporter by any means, but I still think she'll win. She has tons and tons of resources that Donald Trump doesn't have. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm not all that politically informed.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 04:54 PM
I don't think he'll quit, but I do think he will lose. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Clinton supporter by any means, but I still think she'll win. She has tons and tons of resources that Donald Trump doesn't have. Correct me if I'm wrong though. I'm not all that politically informed.
You sum it up pretty well :P

Stronk Serb
August 24th, 2016, 09:10 PM
What makes you think it is as likely as Clinton... Trump is the immature kid that knows nothing of foreign policy and flip flops in the same sentence.

Are you sure he's not gonna nuke someone just because he's mad at them? We've seen how he treats people who doesnt agree with him during his campaign.



How? did FDR deport 11 millions people and an entire religion? I know someone who tried it and its not FDR



People say using nuclear weapons in japan seem like it was necessary at the time. I kinda disagree with that the US had already won that war, not using nuclear weapons it might had took a few more months before Japan surrender. On the other hand its a good thing it was use on the field once before someone else get nuclear weapons so humans could see how terrible of a weapons it is and made other people think twice before using them again. Even Truman after he used them the two times in Japan said ''this is not a regular weapon of war and shouldn't be used again. This weapon does not kill soldiers but women and children.'' Even he the only person to use nuclear weapons understood the severity of using nuclear weapons. Trump does not understand that



(For what you wrote before this just see above.)

Nuclear war is like getting shot in the head its a fast and painless death unless you against the odds you don't die from it immidiatly. Climate Change is like HIV it will kill you slowly and painfully unless you do something about it to slow it down until we can figure out how to cure it, or you die from something else.

In any other election I would say vote for someone like Jill Stein but with this election if I say that and people do it, it might cause the fourth reich, and give access to nuclear weapons to a Neo-Nazi.



It was said earlier the system is desine to asure that anyone who attack the US with nuclear weapons that country will be nuked too. Its scary to think that the president of the US has the ability without obstruction from everyone to make a decision and 25 minutes later the end of the world as begins, but its the truth. Im not even sure the millitary would even know if they are the 1st to attack or not.



Hillary Clinton does understand foreign policy and know the consiquences of using nukes, someone who say ''Nuclear weapons why don't we use them if we make them'' does not.

Trump impeached or triled for war crimes is irrelevant when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons because everyone will be dead. If he's Impeached for something else like lets say torture, than his vice-fuhrer would take over, I certainly trust Mike Pence with nuclear weapons and he would become the 1st gay US president, but he as bad if not worst than Trump on climate change and I like breathing.


Hillary has more bodies on her conscience and she's a sociopath looking for the presidential chair. I would be more worried putting nukes in her hands.

mattsmith48
August 24th, 2016, 09:18 PM
Hillary has more bodies on her conscience and she's a sociopath looking for the presidential chair. I would be more worried putting nukes in her hands.

She understand the consiquences of the use of nuclear weapons, Trump clearly doesnt.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 09:32 PM
Hillary has more bodies on her conscience and she's a sociopath looking for the presidential chair. I would be more worried putting nukes in her hands.
How is she a sociopath? Trump dosen't have a clue about foreign affairs, flip flops in the same sentence and is probably stupid enough to threaten nukes to negotiate deals with other countries.
j1vlMUfR_Wc

Dalcourt
August 24th, 2016, 10:20 PM
How is she a sociopath? Trump dosen't have a clue about foreign affairs, flip flops in the same sentence and is probably stupid enough to threaten nukes to negotiate deals with other countries.
j1vlMUfR_Wc

Looking at Hillary's career it's clear she would do anything to succeed in her goals.
And who would Trump threaten? Some of the helpless Middle Eastern countries USA destroyed with waging useless wars against at least since Bush sr.?
I don't think he has balls enough to threatend someone who could provide real danger...
So for the US there wouldn't be a real danger and even nukes aren't the end of the world as Japan has shown. And to be honest what's the difference between destroying a region with "smaller" weapons over decades or wipe it out in a single blow. It's both barbaric.

Flapjack
August 24th, 2016, 10:26 PM
Looking at Hillary's career it's clear she would do anything to succeed in her goals.
And who would Trump threaten? Some of the helpless Middle Eastern countries USA destroyed with waging useless wars against at least since Bush sr.?
I don't think he has balls enough to threatend someone who could provide real danger...
So for the US there wouldn't be a real danger and even nukes aren't the end of the world as Japan has shown. And to be honest what's the difference between destroying a region with "smaller" weapons over decades or wipe it out in a single blow. It's both barbaric.
I don't think Trump would but I think the odds that he would are a lot higher than Clinton's. The problem with Trump is that while it is true he has no balls, he is also a idiot so I fear he may not believe the danger.

Dalcourt
August 24th, 2016, 10:55 PM
I don't think Trump would but I think the odds that he would are a lot higher than Clinton's. The problem with Trump is that while it is true he has no balls, he is also a idiot so I fear he may not believe the danger.

Not even Trump is so stupid as not to know the effects of nuclear weapons.

You know, even if some... or a lot... of the things Trump says and does may seem strange and probably ridiculous even more to Europeans, Trump is not the complete idiot everyone loves to portray him as.

He wouldn't have made it as a business man and presidential candidate if he were.

He may not win but if he does he won't do more harm than the Bushes or Obama or all the unable politicans in Europe like e.g. Cameron who caused this highly unnecessary Brexit.

Drewboyy
August 24th, 2016, 11:37 PM
He definitely won't quit, especially now that he threw a curve ball in his campaign which gave him hope in recovering from the military family abusing the media thing. However, if he does lose, then he will almost certainly make a fuss about Hillary cheating (and rightfully so. Who wouldn't suspect of her of that??)

Vlerchan
August 25th, 2016, 05:24 AM
Who wouldn't suspect of her of that??
Reasonable people.

phuckphace
August 25th, 2016, 08:04 AM
the next time nukes get used it will be preemptively by Mohammad's fan club, either against the US or Israel or both

we'll still come out on top, though. their weapons will be a couple megatons at most and if they're lucky they could maybe hit a couple cities* with the bombs schlepped in by hand, that is if they don't fizzle and stay in the kiloton range due to being built by dumb durka durkas. they know a much more OP retaliation with ICBMs will come but don't care because getting immolated in nuclear hellfire just means 72 virgins that much sooner

*LA and San Fran, inshallah

Professional Russian
August 25th, 2016, 08:30 AM
all im gonna say about Hilary is that she left 13 navy seals to die in benghazi because she at a fucking u2 concert and wouldnt respond to the calls. not to mention the something like 30,000 emails contain classified information.

mattsmith48
August 25th, 2016, 10:29 AM
all im gonna say about Hilary is that she left 13 navy seals to die in benghazi because she at a fucking u2 concert and wouldnt respond to the calls. not to mention the something like 30,000 emails contain classified information.

Have you ever been to a concert its kinda hard to ear you phone ring or even speech on the phone, and why is she not allowed to have fun. She made a mistake get over it.

Professional Russian
August 25th, 2016, 10:37 AM
Have you ever been to a concert its kinda hard to ear you phone ring or even speech on the phone, and why is she not allowed to have fun. She made a mistake get over it.

no i will not get over the fact she ignored the state Department phone calls and let 13 navy seals die because she was to busy. those 13 men should have been the first priority. not that fucking concert. if you want to hold a position of power you need to take the responsibility that comes with it. on 9/11 bush was reading a book to a class. as soon as he got the news a plane crashed into the twin towers he was on airforce one on his way back to deal with the situation. having fun isn't an excuse to let our men in uniform die.

PlasmaHam
August 25th, 2016, 10:48 AM
Have you ever been to a concert its kinda hard to ear you phone ring or even speech on the phone, and why is she not allowed to have fun. She made a mistake get over it.

Besides what professional Russian also said, Hillary Clinton continued her lying train about it. She lied about the situation, she lied about the causes, she lied to the families of the victims. She made a major mistake, yet she is too prideful and crooked to admit it, and just covered it up with more lies.

Vlerchan
August 25th, 2016, 11:48 AM
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continued to insist Wednesday in a "Hannity" town hall with Fox News' Sean Hannity that there will be "no amnesty" for illegal immigrants, but suggested that he would be willing to "work with them."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/25/trump-says-government-can-work-with-illegal-immigrants.html

He more or less defended Obama's immigration record the day before last.

Seems the alt-right and natavists got Trump'd. Transatlantic elite are laughing all the way to the bank.

Porpoise101
August 25th, 2016, 03:56 PM
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continued to insist Wednesday in a "Hannity" town hall with Fox News' Sean Hannity that there will be "no amnesty" for illegal immigrants, but suggested that he would be willing to "work with them."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/25/trump-says-government-can-work-with-illegal-immigrants.html

He more or less defended Obama's immigration record the day before last.

Seems the alt-right and natavists got Trump'd. Transatlantic elite are laughing all the way to the bank.
There is speculation that Trump is softening up because he wants to be perceived better by white women. He is being nice to minorities in his speeches to give the impression that he isn't really a racist (wait but that means Trump is PC?!) in order to get more white women to get a better impression of him. He must know that he has no chance of getting minority voters (besides Asians, but who cares about us tbh?). White women also seem to be a key component of Hillary's base. Seems like a good strategy to me if it is true.

Vlerchan
August 25th, 2016, 05:26 PM
There is speculation that Trump is softening up because he wants to be perceived better by white women.
This is what I thought - that and he's hoping to appeal to anti-trade whites that are in the fence.

Speaking of white woman though:

Watching as Mr. Trump appeared to do just that, Ms. Coulter erupted in a series of Twitter messages. “It’s not ‘amnesty.’ It’s ‘comprehensive immigration reform’!!!! Trump: ‘they have to pay taxes, there’s no amnesty,’” she wrote in one post.
Lol.

DriveAlive
August 25th, 2016, 06:13 PM
This is what I thought - that and he's hoping to appeal to anti-trade whites that are in the fence.

Speaking of white woman though:

Watching as Mr. Trump appeared to do just that, Ms. Coulter erupted in a series of Twitter messages. “It’s not ‘amnesty.’ It’s ‘comprehensive immigration reform’!!!! Trump: ‘they have to pay taxes, there’s no amnesty,’” she wrote in one post.
Lol.

I love Ann Coulter!

Porpoise101
August 25th, 2016, 06:31 PM
I love Ann Coulter!
What is there to love tho?

DriveAlive
August 25th, 2016, 09:46 PM
What is there to love tho?

She is hilarious.

Flapjack
August 25th, 2016, 11:23 PM
It looks like Trump's new advisers are trying to make him seem more like the traditional conservative to get the independents and those that have jumped ship however now I think that is too late.

I think the chances of him quitting are going up but I still don't think he will.
g6vDcMSWUfI

Stronk Serb
August 26th, 2016, 12:38 PM
She understand the consiquences of the use of nuclear weapons, Trump clearly doesnt.

How is she a sociopath? Trump dosen't have a clue about foreign affairs, flip flops in the same sentence and is probably stupid enough to threaten nukes to negotiate deals with other countries.
j1vlMUfR_Wc

He does, he is way smarter than people give him credit to. Before he got the Republican nomination, he did smear campaigns on his oponents and was calling on their weakness and folly. Now he is doing it with Clinton too.

Flapjack
August 26th, 2016, 06:52 PM
He does, he is way smarter than people give him credit to. Before he got the Republican nomination, he did smear campaigns on his oponents and was calling on their weakness and folly. Now he is doing it with Clinton too.
He didn't know what a ground game was xD The guy is a joke and an idiot. But is says racist crap, knows nothing of foreign policy and that is exactly what the right wing loves.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 07:05 PM
What kind of even could stop the 2020 election from happening? (If Hillary wins this year, If Trump wins everyone will be dead because of nuclear war hes gonna start)

Many things, but I don't see Trump to be that willing to use those nukes.


I hope he wins, just to see the liberals cry and get triggered.

That's a fickle motivator, if I may say so.


Hillary has more bodies on her conscience and she's a sociopath looking for the presidential chair. I would be more worried putting nukes in her hands.

Arguably so yes, agreed.


How is she a sociopath?

Without proper psychological assessment closer to either Trump or Clinton that means more than only media coverage we get of them, we can only make quite good educated guesses.

I feel that both at least have some psychopathic qualities; the effective two-person choice presented to the US this election is especially bad and interesting. Personally I want Trump to win.

Vlerchan
August 26th, 2016, 07:14 PM
Speaking of Coulter, I Lol'd over these (http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/08/25/people-give-ann-coulters-book-cover-makeover-trumps-immigration-flip-flop/) when I saw them today.

In particular, the first one.

Personally I want Trump to win.
You're that anti-establishment?

the right wing
Let's not tar the entire right-wing with the same brush, here.

Lots of them have denounced Trump, and it's a number that increases by the day.

Paraxiom
August 26th, 2016, 07:27 PM
You're that anti-establishment?


No lol that's not what I meant! I want him in because I want to see what sort of eventful time we'll have with him around, which I anticipate to be much more eventful than if Clinton gets in.

It's for entertainment reasons, mostly out of taking an optimistic spin on this especially corrupted series of events.

I am anti-establishment in general though; if Trump is apparently random enough he might do things I actually go with.

Ideally I want nobody to win, because there wouldn't be such an election system like this in the first place. I like to not offer myself such an easy way out that spoils the fun of living in such times as these.

mattsmith48
August 26th, 2016, 10:29 PM
Besides what professional Russian also said, Hillary Clinton continued her lying train about it. She lied about the situation, she lied about the causes, she lied to the families of the victims. She made a major mistake, yet she is too prideful and crooked to admit it, and just covered it up with more lies.

You can't complain about someone lying when you support the only presidential candidate that is less trust worthy than Hillary Clinton.

mattsmith48
August 26th, 2016, 10:35 PM
No lol that's not what I meant! I want him in because I want to see what sort of eventful time we'll have with him around, which I anticipate to be much more eventful than if Clinton gets in.

It's for entertainment reasons, mostly out of taking an optimistic spin on this especially corrupted series of events.

I am anti-establishment in general though; if Trump is apparently random enough he might do things I actually go with.

Ideally I want nobody to win, because there wouldn't be such an election system like this in the first place. I like to not offer myself such an easy way out that spoils the fun of living in such times as these.

Your talking about entertainment I think it will be more entertainning if Trump lose. Just by having him try to invent reasons he lost and cry like a little kid.

Trump winning would be entertainning if Trump getting nuclear weapons and climate change werent issues.

And people who think trump would never use nukes because he understand the consiquences, stop lying to yourself, its clear he doesnt

PlasmaHam
August 27th, 2016, 08:03 AM
And people who think trump would never use nukes because he understand the consiquences, stop lying to yourself, its clear he doesnt

Could you source that? Stop lying to yourself about Trump.

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 11:48 AM
Could you source that? Stop lying to yourself about Trump.

Just look up at previous posts there is plenty of sources

Dalcourt
August 27th, 2016, 11:50 AM
And people who think trump would never use nukes because he understand the consiquences, stop lying to yourself, its clear he doesnt

So against who do you think he would use the nukes against then?
For what reasons? What would the consequences he doesn't understand be?
And why do you think he doesn't understand the consequences?

Vlerchan
August 27th, 2016, 11:53 AM
Just look up at previous posts there is plenty of sources
Like the source I produced where Trump claimed he'd be the last to use nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons are horrific (etc.)?

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 12:00 PM
So against who do you think he would use the nukes against then?
For what reasons? What would the consequences he doesn't understand be?
And why do you think he doesn't understand the consequences?

He openly said he might use them in the middle east and in europe. He might use them against ISIS, or another country the US is currently at war with or just use them because he's mad at someone the kind of thing someone as unpredictable and mentally unstable as Trump would do. Also someone who say ''Nuclear weapons, why can't we use them'' or that South Korea and Japan should be allowed to have their own nukes does not understand the consequences and implication of the use of nuclear weapons

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 12:01 PM
Like the source I produced where Trump claimed he'd be the last to use nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons are horrific (etc.)?

How are you sure he was telling the truth or that he won't change his mind when in office?

Reise
August 27th, 2016, 12:07 PM
How are you sure he was telling the truth or that he won't change his mind when in office?
Please, just... stop.

Discussing trump's attitudes and how he would react to a failure or even his behavior once president is okay, but stop turning around a so sterile subject.
This is actually really embarrassing, for me at least.

Dalcourt
August 27th, 2016, 12:24 PM
He openly said he might use them in the middle east and in europe. He might use them against ISIS, or another country the US is currently at war with or just use them because he's mad at someone the kind of thing someone as unpredictable and mentally unstable as Trump would do. Also someone who say ''Nuclear weapons, why can't we use them'' or that South Korea and Japan should be allowed to have their own nukes does not understand the consequences and implication of the use of nuclear weapons

Well I'd say if someone wants to use nukes he understands the consequences or why else would he want to use them?

South Korea and Japan could be argued to be allowed to have them for fairness reason in case they have to defend themselves against North Korea. Like India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. If they want to have them is however their decision and not Trumps.

And as a whole it's not like he could just push some red button out of a whim to destroy Europe or anything. That's just ridiculous and a scenario fromsome bad movie.

So please forget about the Trump and nukes shit.
There are far more serious consequences if Trump will be elected....same goes for Hillary. ..

Professional Russian
August 27th, 2016, 03:29 PM
How are you sure he was telling the truth or that he won't change his mind when in office?

how are you sure Hilary won't be an even bigger bitch in office and leave whole battalions to die in the field?

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2016, 05:55 PM
Well I'd say if someone wants to use nukes he understands the consequences or why else would he want to use them?

Its Trump were talking about im sure we would use them just to get back at someone.

South Korea and Japan could be argued to be allowed to have them for fairness reason in case they have to defend themselves against North Korea. Like India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. If they want to have them is however their decision and not Trumps.

If you let more country like Japan or South Korea get nuclear weapons it would just get out of control and more countries would then want to have nukes too and before you know it everyone as nuclear weapons.

And as a whole it's not like he could just push some red button out of a whim to destroy Europe or anything. That's just ridiculous and a scenario fromsome bad movie.

In 2008, then–Vice President Dick Cheney said something pretty chilling about nuclear weapons during a Fox News appearance. According to Cheney, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever:

He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes

So please forget about the Trump and nukes shit.
There are far more serious consequences if Trump will be elected....same goes for Hillary. ..

What as more serious consequences that a maniac having the possibility of ending live on earth?

ThisBougieLife
August 27th, 2016, 09:32 PM
Trump has interestingly been softening some of his initial hard-line positions that he so roused frustrated white America in the beginning of his campaign with. He has been dialing back on his proposal to deport all illegals, and he has already softened his position on the "Muslim ban". I do not believe he will quit, but it is interesting to see the way that he is moving more toward the establishment Republican positions now that he is nearing closer to the election.

I was looking forward more to the debates when his positions were more inflammatory; now I suspect they may even be boring.

(I have not read the rest of the thread, just wanted to put in my 2 cents on the Trump phenomenon).

Dalcourt
August 28th, 2016, 12:02 AM
Its Trump were talking about im sure we would use them just to get back at someone.



As I said before even if you are the President of the United States you won't just press a button and booom. That's what it might work like in a bad movie but not in reality.


If you let more country like Japan or South Korea get nuclear weapons it would just get out of control and more countries would then want to have nukes too and before you know it everyone as nuclear weapons.


End of day this would be those countries decision and not Trumps. So this is a problem we could basically have no matter who is our president.




What as more serious consequences that a maniac having the possibility of ending live on earth?

The nuclear arsenal can't end live on Earth.
A nuclear plant that blows up like in Chernobyl and Fukushima
causes a lot more damage in the long run which also leads to my first consequence.
Dangers to the US and the rest of the wourld that are more imminent than a nuclear war.
Environmental problems like climate change and the resulting natural disasters, the problems of pollution and where we will get our energy from in the future.... It's off topic and therefore I don't go into depths but those things are far more likely to be the worst consequences our world has to face in the future.

Bad politics are also bound to cause economic problems...like the US had before and is still overcoming at the moment. So being thrown back again due to some unwise decision. Unemployment rising again and shit like that. Also far more likely than a nuclear war.

Social problems arising from the above...there's so many instability in our society already. More people suffer from economic decline... more unhappy groups...one wrong word from a politican....one wrong move. Could lead to a great deal of social unrest a d innocent might suffer the consequences.

I'm not saying something like I mentioned above really happens since I can't see the future but those things could be imminent dangers we face not a nuclear war.

Vlerchan
August 28th, 2016, 05:04 AM
He openly said he might use them in the middle east and in europe.
I'd appreciate if you could produce this quote in its full context.

The ridiculousness of the statement should make it clear how his words are being manipulated at the moment - but still.

How are you sure he was telling the truth or that he won't change his mind when in office?
If we aren't willing to debate on back of Trumps actual sentiments then there's no point debating at all.

Otherwise it's just a match of prejudices. Whilst I can see you're comfortable with that - I don't see the point.

The specific reasoning is also fallacious but I'm not sure those reading needed that to be mentioned to them. The complete lack of argument jumps out with or without comment.

Paraxiom
August 29th, 2016, 09:31 AM
The nuclear arsenal can't end live on Earth.

It can quickly initiate a severe mass extinction though.



A nuclear plant that blows up like in Chernobyl and Fukushima
causes a lot more damage in the long run which also leads to my first consequence.
Dangers to the US and the rest of the wourld that are more imminent than a nuclear war.
Environmental problems like climate change and the resulting natural disasters, the problems of pollution and where we will get our energy from in the future.... It's off topic and therefore I don't go into depths but those things are far more likely to be the worst consequences our world has to face in the future.


It's not great either way yay! (agreed)


Your talking about entertainment I think it will be more entertainning if Trump lose. Just by having him try to invent reasons he lost and cry like a little kid.

It would be entertaining either way, but Trump losing would be shorter than if he wins. Also though, I expect some form of rioting to happen with the election result, so that will be less entertaining (though still a bit if Trump loses).

Overall more entertaining if he wins.



Trump winning would be entertainning if Trump getting nuclear weapons and climate change werent issues.

I don't expect Trump to launch the nuclear weaponry; anyhow, entertainment does not necessitate that the entertained survive. :rolleyes:



And people who think trump would never use nukes because he understand the consiquences, stop lying to yourself, its clear he doesnt

Whatever about the degree+form of his psychopathic frame of mind, I don't think he sees DEFCON 1 / actual nuclear warfare as a worthwhile endeavour, taking his life history of building+maintaining a business empire for decades. I expect that he holds even his Doolin gold resort as more important than nukes.

DriveAlive
August 29th, 2016, 10:52 AM
My feelings are so mixed on Trump now. One of my idols, Carl Icahn, still backs Trump because he will shake up Washington and hopefully break through political gridlock. However, one of my other idols, Mark Cuban, is now strongly backing Hillary because she will hopefully adopt his economic plan.

I still do not know if Trump would make a decent president. He may be an egomaniac, but so is every politician. In fact, Trump is so obsessed with his name that I doubt he would do anything as president which could tarnish it in his eyes, namely, causing an economic downturn. He has built a business empire by surrounding himself with the best people and I assume that he would do the same as president. Furthermore, Ivanka has shown to be taking the lead on the social policy front by promoting a strongly pro-women and socially liberal agenda. The best possible outcome of a Trump presidency would be the sharpest business minds working to fix trade and spending, Ivanka promoting a socially liberal agenda, and Trump as a Reagan-like figurehead to inspire confidence and build consensus amongst the American people. The worst possible outcome would be an extremely ineffective and socially conservative presidency that puts the economy into a tailspin.

I am fairly confident that Hillary would make a good president. She has the experience and attitude necessary to be president. She favors consensus over partisan platform points. Bill's presidency shows a solid track record of bipartisan negotiations and a commitment to bringing government spending under control, something lacking amongst nearly all other democrats. The Hillary I would love to see as president is the conservative democrat Clinton from the 1990s who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. However, I wonder if her hawkishness and recent shift to the far left in order to appease liberal voters will ultimately make her presidency damaging to the country. Also, I fear that the extreme dislike of her by republicans, and even some democrats, will make it impossible for her to strike bipartisan deals. The best possible outcome of a Hillary presidency would be a socially liberal agenda paired with bipartisan compromise and a fiscally conservative stance on government spending, as well as serious input from economic advisors like Mark Cuban. The worst possible outcome would be an entirely liberal agenda marred by political gridlock and possibly entry into another war.

While I am currently leaning strongly toward Hillary, I do not see Trump as the evil demagogue of which he is commonly portrayed. He is far from the strong dark horse candidate I supported during the primaries and I fear that his campaign is now becoming unsalvageable, but I have not given up hope, especially if the Hillary campaign descends further into liberal darkness. Why can we never have the best of both worlds? I am still holding out for the Cuban-Coulter ticket from Sharknado 3.

Stronk Serb
August 29th, 2016, 03:07 PM
https://scontent-vie.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/14191909_1119492718116900_5370724213370793017_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=a58d326aa6fc9c5465d6f2a224f40530&oe=584E84EE



Okay, so all of you who think Trump is a criminal/murderer etc.

Vlerchan
August 29th, 2016, 05:09 PM
[deficit-control] lacking amongst nearly all other democrats [...]
In fairness, the Democrats have a better tackrecord than Conservatives on the basis of their actions taken whilst in office.

To answer your concerns about Clinton, though. She has no chance of getting re-elected on the back of the Left-wing Democrat vote. Expect her to build a coalition around the Centre and NeverTrump Republicans at the Centre-right because that's what will win her the next election, if she has a chance at all. Her VP pick is the real indication of what she's going to b e like in office, not her tokenistic gesture to Bernie supporters.

The biggest issue I see, is that Republicans will block her on the basis she's Clinton, regardless of whatever bipartisan efforts she makes. Though, I would prefer that to Trump tearing open the deficit and trade-wars.

mattsmith48
August 30th, 2016, 01:14 PM
As I said before even if you are the President of the United States you won't just press a button and booom. That's what it might work like in a bad movie but not in reality.

It is pretty close to that. its made to be easy and fast for the president to launch nuclear weapons, to make sure if anyone launch nukes against the US will also be destroyed

End of day this would be those countries decision and not Trumps. So this is a problem we could basically have no matter who is our president.

Your right but what about countries who want to get nuclear weapons? If the president of the US say its fine if Japan and South Korea get nuclear weapons and we should let them have nukes, than its unfair to try prevent countries who do want nuclear weapons.

The nuclear arsenal can't end live on Earth.
A nuclear plant that blows up like in Chernobyl and Fukushima
causes a lot more damage in the long run which also leads to my first consequence.

Thats true if you only use one nuke, but if we have a nuclear war there will be more than one nuke used, and for the people who survive the war after the war it get worst with nuclear winter and the nuclear fallout.

Dangers to the US and the rest of the wourld that are more imminent than a nuclear war.
Environmental problems like climate change and the resulting natural disasters, the problems of pollution and where we will get our energy from in the future.... It's off topic and therefore I don't go into depths but those things are far more likely to be the worst consequences our world has to face in the future.

I agree those are very important issues and should be adressed immediately and no one should vote for people like Trump who believe climate change is not real. For where we will be getting energy from in the future we know its just a matter of how to do it and how to transition to it.

Bad politics are also bound to cause economic problems...like the US had before and is still overcoming at the moment. So being thrown back again due to some unwise decision. Unemployment rising again and shit like that. Also far more likely than a nuclear war.

Social problems arising from the above...there's so many instability in our society already. More people suffer from economic decline... more unhappy groups...one wrong word from a politican....one wrong move. Could lead to a great deal of social unrest a d innocent might suffer the consequences.

I'm not saying something like I mentioned above really happens since I can't see the future but those things could be imminent dangers we face not a nuclear war.

Trump destroying the enviroment or fucking up the economy are also good reason to not support him, but his supporters don't seem to understand those things, what those people understand is fear and stating the facts that Trump does not understand the consiquences of the use of nuclear weapons might scare them enough to not vote for this maniac

jamie_n5
August 30th, 2016, 02:36 PM
Do you really truly believe that after fighting to get the nomination for president that Trump is that vain that he would just up and quit? I can't believe that anyone even Trump would do such a thing.

mattsmith48
August 30th, 2016, 02:45 PM
Do you really truly believe that after fighting to get the nomination for president that Trump is that vain that he would just up and quit? I can't believe that anyone even Trump would do such a thing.

The only reason Trump would quit is if someone would pay him to step down

Paraxiom
August 30th, 2016, 07:00 PM
Do you really truly believe that after fighting to get the nomination for president that Trump is that vain that he would just up and quit? I can't believe that anyone even Trump would do such a thing.

The only reason Trump would quit is if someone would pay him to step down

I did hear a (until now) popular theory that speculated Trump's whole campaign to be a large advert to get more attention on himself, with also trolling the US general election system.

Since his week of 'calming down' I'm not confident of that theory.

Flapjack
September 6th, 2016, 09:07 AM
For all those that like to fearmonger...

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-09-01-1472759565-493250-extreme_extreme_vetting.jpg

mattsmith48
September 6th, 2016, 10:59 AM
For all those that like to fearmonger...

image (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-09-01-1472759565-493250-extreme_extreme_vetting.jpg)

But we all know if people killed by guns had a gun with them when they got killed they would still be alive. The other person would be dead and the number of people kill by guns would probably be the same, but atlease those people currently dead because of guns wouldn't be dead.

Seriously people, how can anyone see shit like this and still say the US doesn't have a gun problem?

Vlerchan
September 6th, 2016, 11:14 AM
For all those that like to fearmonger...

image (http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-09-01-1472759565-493250-extreme_extreme_vetting.jpg)
What's the number of people killed with nuclear weapons - as an average across the last decade?

---

I am also just confused about Trump's immigration position at this stage. Between the flip-flop last Thursday - his surrogates hinting at another flip-flop across the weekend - and that flip-flop yesterday, I'm leaning towards a general softening.

But who really knows at this stage.

Porpoise101
September 6th, 2016, 03:17 PM
I'm leaning towards a general softening.
Well even if Trump "softens" his position, Trump-soft is actually pretty hard hitting relative to everyone else.

That being said, you don't really know anything about Trump. He doesn't say anything that is based in fact, only plays on emotions. He doesn't need to say anything specific, just needs to get a certain 'feeling' across to voters.

Paraxiom
September 6th, 2016, 04:27 PM
He doesn't need to say anything specific, just needs to get a certain 'feeling' across to voters.

That's a huge factor in any US presidential candidate. :P But yes, him especially.

phuckphace
September 7th, 2016, 12:16 PM
I don't think track records of bipartisanship is a very useful discussion - when you consider the vanishingly small effective difference between the establishment parties, it means that when either side reaches out to the other in a bipartisan gesture, it's not anywhere near as high-effort as it appears. notice how the Republican's hectoring of Bill Clinton had more to do with what he was doing with his dick (i.e. culture war) but when it came down to serious establishment business like passing NAFTA, the GOP was happily willing to collaborate. the GOP never turns down an opportunity to shit on its own base.

if Hillary does win I don't doubt she'll have little trouble cutting bipartisan deals with the pseudocons who rejected Trump since they agree on everything anyway